Autonomous Armed Robots

The argument of whether or not it is morally justifiable to allow fully autonomous robots to ‘play god’ over the lives of people in conflict is a major issue in today’s political climate. The activist group ‘The campaign to stop killer robots’ argues that it is morally unjustifiable to allow such technology to exist, stating that it will challenge the protection of civilians, more conflicts and the absence of human judgment or moral values. Their arguments make an effort to convince readers to sign a petition to ban the development and deployment of these autonomous ‘killer robots’, however their arguments lack some accuracy in small particular areas. The textbook written by Armin Krishnan ‘Killer Robots’ is persuasive and well written, with minimal error.

In the main article by ‘the campaign to stop killer robots’ against the development of Autonomous armed Robots, the argument is made that with the expansion of unmanned weapons, also known as ‘drones’ that when one country creates fully autonomous weapons that all other countries that can, will also create autonomous weapons. It states “If one or more chooses to deploy fully autonomous weapons, a large step beyond remote-controlled armed drones, others may feel compelled to abandon policies of restraint, leading to a …show more content…
It states “Replacing human troops with machines could make the decision to go to war easier, which would shift the burden of armed conflict further onto civilian.” The argument assumes that nation states easily and readily enter conflicts. Once again a ‘Slippery Slope fallacy’, with it still suggesting negative future events occurring as a result. Yet nations are unlikely to enter conflict without great hesitation, as identified with major conflicts such as World War One and